What people who use faith as a fig leaf for their bigotries fail to realize is this: that we who don’t share their biases, we who believe that our fellow citizens should be allowed to live their lives unmolested by religious zealots, actually feel as strongly about our convictions as they do about theirs, even though we do not pretend to be God’s ventriloquist dummies. Call it faith of a new kind. Though I’m less worked up about mine, because this issue has been settled. If you can look at history’s arc, you know how this ends. That some are so stiff-necked they can’t turn their heads to see, well, that is their trouble, and ours, for now.

I never quite got my head around what the whole controversy was, largely because most of the articles seem to retell the tale from a biased perspective. The conservatives are complaining that all Dan Cathy said was that he supported traditional marriages and those liberal, gay goons went all ballistic on him and his company. The liberals claimed that Cathy said that God was going to judge us based upon our tolerance of gays, which sounds a bit Nazi-esque, depending on what you think would be an appropriate level of intolerance.

Here is what Dan Cathy actually said: "I think we are inviting God's judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say, 'We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage." Now, I wouldn't exactly call that innocuous, but it's also not exactly preparation for the gay holocaust either.

Apparently, this conflict between gay rights advocates and Dan Cathy isn't a new one. Cathy has been a strong supporter, to the tune of millions of dollars, of anti-gay marriage groups over the past few years and Chick-fil-A's Christian foundation is hardly a new revelation... their fast food restaurants aren't even open on the Sabbath.

Not surprisingly, this is the angle FoxNews is pushing. Chick-fil-A and its owner Dan Cathy are being boycotted for being Christians. Of course, it never hurts to whip out a traditional Democratic boogeyman like Rahm Emanuel and show a couple of guys in rainbow t-shirts kissing.

I guess Dan Cathy has a right to his beliefs, as do the rest of us. Don't eat at Chick-fil-A, which shouldn't be too hard considering that you'd have to drive to Racine just to get a fast food chicken sandwich.

pjbogart wrote:Here is what Dan Cathy actually said: "I think we are inviting God's judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say, 'We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage." Now, I wouldn't exactly call that innocuous, but it's also not exactly preparation for the gay holocaust either.

It ain't? I guess it would depend on what he meant by "God's judgement" but to me it sounds exactly like "get ready for a holocaust from God if you let those people get married."

My first post was my favorite part of Neil's article but I love this sentence too:

I take the above to mean, “Hey, if you’re condemning anti-gay bigotry, then you’re condemning us, because we’re bigots too, though in our case it’s OK, because God is cool with our prejudices.”

Bigotry is bigotry. The Church used to do a whole lot of things its god told it to and called upon to explain it today will say "well, that was then. Of course we'd never do that NOW. THIS is different."

You guys need to google "holocaust", read up on just what that means, and then come back and explain to us just how it is that a guy running a business selling chicken sandwiches who expressed the same basic ideas about traditional marriage, as have the last two Democrat presidents of the United States, has somehow presaged the next mass murder of gay people.

And if you truly do believe that we are looking at something as dire as a coming holocaust, just why is it that you are titling a thread on an internet forum "Why did Chick Fil A cross the road"?

pjbogart wrote:I never quite got my head around what the whole controversy was

In the micro, there really isn't. But there's been quite a hot, one sided cold war going on so to speak. If one thinks structurally, institutionally, the progression that has been taking place makes sense. It's a playbook of long ago, all based upon structures and institutional infiltration and domination. --aren't gays told to apply there and infiltrate/dominate it?

Think community organizer.Think who is running the show.Think of what happens to anyone that cross/disagree with them (from Gov Palin to Joe the Plumber to Gov. Walker to, well, chick a fil's family business).

This is the inside story of one of the most stunning reversals of political fortune in American history. Four years ago, the GOP dominated politics at every level in Colorado. Republicans held both Senate seats, five of seven congressional seats, the governor’s mansion, the offices of secretary of state and treasurer, and both houses of the state legislature. After the 2008 election, the exact opposite was true: replace the word Republicans with Democrats in the previous sentence, and you have of one the most stunning reversals of political fortune in American history.

This is also the story of how it will happen—indeed, is happening—in other states across the country. In Colorado, progressives believe they have found a blueprint for creating permanent Democratic majorities across the nation. With discipline and focus, they have pioneered a legal architecture designed to take advantage of new campaign finance laws and ....linked above:

Short story is intimidation.Examples will be made and thus everyone else will be silent.

[Joseph Stalin]Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas.

The Machine......plata o plomo, silver or lead....

I guess Dan Cathy has a right to his beliefs, as do the rest of us.

No don't fluking guess. Don't be a leftist. He does have a God given right to his beliefs. You don't own his thoughts, though most leftists would like to think otherwise.

Would you find it interesting to compare and contrast the gays staging a sexual kiss-in for political reasons at a private business...and the reception they received with....say a conservative coming to the UW (or most other universities) to speak and the reception they receive?

Meade wrote:You guys need to google "holocaust", read up on just what that means, and then come back and explain to us just how it is that a guy running a business selling chicken sandwiches who expressed the same basic ideas about traditional marriage, as have the last two Democrat presidents of the United States, has somehow presaged the next mass murder of gay people.

And if you truly do believe that we are looking at something as dire as a coming holocaust, just why is it that you are titling a thread on an internet forum "Why did Chick Fil A cross the road"?

You apparently think it's all a joke.

The last two Dem Presidents did not hold the same basic ideas about marriage, they were just extremely weak about supporting gay marriage.

pj said it was not a holocaust. I don't like words like that applied frivilously. See also: "war on".

Rabble lifted the thread title straight from the original article.

I'd like to know what this whole controversy has done to the c-fil-a bottom line. Seems like a boycott is always followed by a buycott nowadays.

bdog wrote:The last two Dem Presidents did not hold the same basic ideas about marriage, they were just extremely weak about supporting gay marriage.

pj said it was not a holocaust. I don't like words like that applied frivilously. See also: "war on".

Rabble lifted the thread title straight from the original article.

I'd like to know what this whole controversy has done to the c-fil-a bottom line. Seems like a boycott is always followed by a buycott nowadays.

I don't think anyone knows precisely how the last two Democratic Presidents felt about gay marriage nor do I think it matters. I don't remember much talk on the subject in the 90's and I'm almost certain that it was a non-issue in the 70's. The public certainly feels differently about gay marriage than they did 40 years ago. If 75% of Republicans suddenly supported gay marriage, I think you'd see their politicians come around as well.

I used the word "holocaust" because when I was trying to find an article with a video or audio link to Dan Cathy's actual statement I came across a lot of vague paraphrasing, all of it considerably skewed to one side or the other. The most egregious of the liberal articles said that Dan Cathy claimed that "God would judge us for our tolerance of homosexuality." That's a far cry from what he actually said and I used the word "holocaust" to mock the overstatement.

Chick-fil-A's bottom line is going to have a boost in the short run, but you'd have to wait a year to see if the controversy hurts their business. I'd be quite certain that activists are already pushing the NCAA to reject Chick-fil-A's sponsorship of the Peach Bowl and they may lose some quality employees, gay and straight, over the kerfuffle. Keep in mind that young people's attitudes about gay marriage differ significantly from the FoxNews demographic.

All in all, I think it's an excellent lesson in free speech and the consequences. There's a reason that most corporations avoid weighing in on controversial topics... alienating your customers, even a portion of them, is generally thought to be bad business.

This is a rare controversy where I see one side 100% out of line, and the other 100% in the right.

The chick-fil-a president gave what I found to be a very bland and common religous view on gay marriage, the "God created Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve" perspective. This was, formally at least, Barack Obama's view in the last presidential race. I think the attitude is backward and clearly heading to the dustbin of history.

Rahm Emanual and a couple other Dem mayors made bizzarly ill-considered statements saying that the franchise was unwelcome in their cities based on the values of the chief chick. Jesus H. Christ!! When did government officials get in the business of imposing values tests on the beliefs, not the behavior, of private citizens?

I am utterly mystified that my fellow liberals don't see how out-of-line the mayors were. The free-speech protest reaction by social conservatives was 100% appropriate and justified. The mayors spoke exactly in the manner that Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh caracturize liberals - govenment bullies attacking liberty.

I stopped patronizing Chick-fil-A as much in sorrow as in anger. The food is good, and I grew up eating it. For years, when I made return trips to the South, Chick-fil-A was often on my tour de junk food, along with Krispy Kreme, which is everywhere now, and Krystal.

Now that I've moved back to Tennessee, I have more opportunities not to eat at Chick-fil-A.

If somebody wants to boycott Chic-fil-a because of the regressive view of the president, that is fine, IMO. I would quietly join that boycott just because I don't want to be counted as a chicken-eating gay hater.

I would say that Americans are biased against boycotts, we sort of have a culture of tolerance when it comes to commerce. Boycotts based on religous beliefs are tricky, even though you might argue that the president of chic-fil-a is bigoted against gays.

The main thing is it is inappropriate for government officials to be making implicit threats.

Huckleby wrote:Boycotts based on religous beliefs are tricky, even though you might argue that the president of chic-fil-a is bigoted against gays.

I see what you're saying, Huck, but if you look at his actual statement, it goes beyond expressing a political or religious statement. It's the age-old, "God is on my side" and furthermore, "God might punish us because you don't agree with me." I think all people of all religions have a right to be offended by that.

pjbogart wrote: It's the age-old, "God is on my side" and furthermore, "God might punish us because you don't agree with me." I think all people of all religions have a right to be offended by that.

It's a fundamentalist, true-believer perspective. This is how evangelicals think, and there are plenty of them out there.

Why be offended? I really don't get that. You are giving their view too much weight.

My sister is a fundamentalist christian. She is forever giving family members leather-bound bibles and other religous items as "presents." A lot of people are offended by this. I don't get that. If somebody else thinks they know what is right for you, they are idiots. Why would you take their opinion in regard to religion seriously enough to be offended?